​Occupy Bangkok’s quest to de-Thaksinize Thailand

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of StopImperialism.com. He is a regular contributor to RT, Counterpunch, New Eastern Outlook, Press TV, and many other news outlets. Visit StopImperialism.com for all his work.

Anti-government protesters take part in a rally in Bangkok's financial district January 23, 2014. (Reuters / Nir Elias) / Reuters

As hundreds of thousands of protesters fill the streets of Bangkok demanding the ouster of the Shinawatra government, the Western media continue their one-sided portrayal of events in Thailand, misrepresenting the protests as anti-democratic.

On January 13, 2014, the largest Thai protests in decades
officially came together under the banner ‘Occupy
Bangkok’. Demanding an end to the regime of Thaksin and
Yingluck Shinawatra, the protesters, who come from all social
classes and all walks of life, have essentially brought the
Bangkok metropolis to a standstill.

Filling the major boulevards and public spaces, Occupy Bangkok
has come to represent more than a mere political uprising, it is
a social movement aiming to rid the country of its corrupt
leadership and restore some semblance of true democracy to
Thailand.

Of course, the Western corporate media puts forward a very
different narrative. Rather than a legitimate struggle against
the current government, Occupy Bangkok is being framed as an
assault on democracy by “royalists” intent upon
restoring the traditional elite to power.

The disingenuousness of such an absurd narrative aside, the
international media portrayal of events in Thailand is
instructive, as it demonstrates unequivocally the way in which
finance capital is attempting to use every weapon at its disposal
to crush a burgeoning social movement.

Corporate media and the Thaksin mythology

In covering the Occupy Bangkok movement, some of the most
prominent media outlets have engaged in a deliberate
misinformation campaign designed to portray Thaksin Shinawatra,
his sister and proxy Yingluck (the present prime minister), and
their supporters as “defenders of democracy.”

In a TIME magazine
article from Thursday January 16, 2014 deceptively titled
‘Bangkok Shutdown: Yingluck Supporters Prepare to Fight for
Democracy’ the author writes, “Thaksin-backed parties
have won the last five elections based upon huge support in
Thailand’s rural northeast, where populist policies are credited
for bringing millions out of poverty. However, Thaksin remains
anathema to royalists and the traditional elite of Bangkok and
the southern provinces, who accuse him of flagrant
vote-buying…The opposition wants an unelected people’s council to
replace the democratically chosen legislature for a period of up
to two years, in order to usher through a series of reforms
designed to permanently nullify Thaksin’s power.”

The article attempts to demonize the anti-Thaksin opposition by
association with ‘royalists’ and ‘traditional
elite’ in order to create the illusion that, rather than a
genuine social movement, the protests are counter-revolutionary
and reactionary in nature. Nothing could be further from the
truth.

In reality, the opposition seeks to rid itself and the country of
a political machine financed and controlled from abroad.
Naturally the opposition, like political opposition in any
country, seeks to gain political power. However, this in no way
negates the legitimacy of their grievances or of those of the
masses on the streets.

One of the principal talking points in the dominant Western media
narrative has been that the Thaksin/Yingluck Shinawatra
government is pro-democracy because it insists upon elections in
the near term as a means of “resolving the crisis.” This
is an utterly laughable notion considering that, by the party’s
own reckoning, it is merely the proxy of Thaksin, who runs the
day-to-day operations from abroad after having fled the country
rather than face corruption and abuse of power charges.

As the New York Times
wrote in January 2013, “For the past year-and-a-half, by
the party’s own admission, the most important political decisions
in this country of 65 million people have been made from abroad,
by a former prime minister who has been in self-imposed exile
since 2008 to escape corruption charges. The country’s most
famous fugitive, Thaksin Shinawatra, circles the globe in his
private jet, chatting with ministers over his dozen cellphones,
texting over various social media platforms and reading
government documents emailed to him from civil servants, party
officials say.”

For the media to portray pro-Thaksin forces as ‘defenders of
democracy’ is both cynical and hypocritical. The notion that
a regime led by a wanted fugitive pulling the strings from abroad
could in any way be ‘democratic’ is an insult to the
word democracy. If democracy is meant to be rule by the people
and for the people, then by definition the Shinawatra government
is much more akin to a corporate dictatorship than it is to any
semblance of democracy.

While much of the Western media attempts to paint Thaksin as the
victim, it is essential to ask precisely why he is regarded as a
criminal by the protesters and many in Thailand and around the
world. More than simple corruption, Thaksin is responsible for
egregious violations of human rights, participation and
collaboration in illegal wars, and orchestrating atrocities
unparalleled in recent Thai history.

The real Thaksin

In examining billionaire Thaksin’s history, one must first
understand the murky swamp of Western interests from which he
emerged. As a key adviser to the private equity firm Carlyle
Group in the late 1990s, Thaksin rubbed elbows with the likes of
George Bush, James Baker, and other notorious neocons and US war
criminals. Acting as an intermediary between finance capital and
their interests in Southeast Asia, Thaksin positioned himself as
the point person for the neocon establishment and its soon-to-be
president George W Bush. Using his vast wealth and political
connections, Thaksin established himself as a political force
and, by 2001, was elected prime minister.

As PM, Thaksin oversaw the selling off of the Thai state oil
company to foreign interests. Despite fierce opposition from
nationalists and opponents of predatory privatization, Thaksin
“pledged to push privatization forward to reduce the
government’s debt and budget deficit.”

So from the earliest stages of his political career, Thaksin was
working in the interests of foreign financiers and investors, as
well as the International Monetary Fund. As Thailand was still
reeling from the economic crisis of the late 1990s, Thaksin was
busy enriching his cronies at the expense of ordinary Thai
people. However, his service to Bush & Co. did not stop
there.

Against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Thai citizens,
in 2003 Thaksin committed troops to the imperialist war waged by
the United States against Iraq. Undoubtedly, Thaksin’s friends in
Washington rejoiced at this move, as we can be sure they also
rejoiced when he allowed Thailand to be used as a host for the
infamous ‘black sites’ utilized by the CIA for their
rendition and torture program. In that same year and in
subsequent years, Thaksin oversaw the murders of thousands and
the smashing of political opposition and dissent.

As Amnesty International reported, many prominent human rights
activists and political dissidents were assassinated or
disappeared under Thaksin’s brutal corporate regime. Moreover,
such attacks did not stop with his ouster in 2006. As recently as
August 2013, political opponents and critics
of Thaksin’s regime have continued to be beaten and murdered in
what can only be seen as politically motivated assassinations.

It must also be noted that the Thaksin regime is supported by the
so called ‘Red Shirts’ – political supporters who
provide the cover for armed terrorist actions designed to
intimidate opponents of his government. Many instances of such
terrorist actions have been documented, including the infamous
2010 violence instigated by armed mercenaries dressed as Red
Shirts, who attacked military forces, instigating a firefight
that led to the deaths of 92 people. In its report (pg. 62) on the incident, Human Rights
Watch noted that:

“As the army attempted to move on the camp, they were
confronted by well-armed men who fired M16 and AK-47 assault
rifles at them, particularly at the Khok Wua intersection on
Rajdamnoen Road. They also fired grenades from M79s and threw M67
hand grenades at the soldiers. News footage and videos taken by
protesters and tourists show several soldiers lying unconscious
and bleeding on the ground, as well as armed men operating with a
high degree of coordination and military skills.”

That the Red Shirts were accompanied by such highly trained
paramilitary fighters in 2010 raises very serious questions –
questions that have only been further raised by violent incidents
directed towards Occupy Bangkok protesters in recent days. One
particularly shocking act of violence took place on
January 17 when a grenade or small bomb was thrown at group
of protesters which included one of the protest leaders, Suthep
Thuangsuban. Thirty-eight people were injured in the explosion,
which undeniably is an act of political violence and terrorism.

Additionally, the Bangkok Post
reported that Red Shirt militias were stockpiling weapons in
preparation for violent clashes with peaceful protesters, yet
another example of the kind of intimidation used by the
pro-Thaksin forces. Political leaders are always held to account
for the actions of their supporters, so too should Thaksin and
his proxy government be held to account for the crimes of his
armed thugs.

Political observers around the world have turned their gaze to
Bangkok in recent weeks, watching this historic political and
social movement strive to uproot the corrupt and criminal
Shinawatra regime. Despite the distortions from Western media,
the people of Thailand and their supporters the world over
recognize the significance of this moment, as despite the money
and muscle provided by finance capital Thaksin’s days as
unelected dictator might be numbered.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.